No DLC

[Bulba]

DLC are evil. If WS2 will be a success, I think the developers are better of spending time on WS3 or other old school rpg, not some minor tweaks and ads to the already finished game.

[infestor]

expansion packs are the way to go.

[zhrakkan]

DLC, 6-10 months after a release good.
DLC on the day of release....bad *cough-Mass Effect 3*

If the engine is there.
And they cam put out a whole new "adventure"
I say freaking DO IT!

[The_A_Drain]

I'm not going to respond to any one specific persons point here, but here is how I feel about DLC in general.

As a thing, like any thing it will be exploited by certain business-minded individuals, mostly in larger corporations. However, I feel this misrepresents the concept of the idea itself.

A lot of content for any game will invariably be left on the cutting room floor, or be unfinished due to time constraints, technical difficulties, etc. 10 years ago we called those things bugs, unfinished quests, or just weird lines of dialogue/etc.

But suddenly the developer has a chance to update those missing pieces after they've made enough money back from the release to pay their rent and suddenly that's a bad thing? I don't buy into that.

I also don't buy into the idea that day 1 DLC is necessarily bad either. As an example, it's very common to see artists moving on to other projects (or if the developer is small/doesn't have other projects, fired) but if the developer has enough content that's likely to be left on the cutting room floor that they can plan a DLC schedule, those artists can be retained to work on that content while the programmers finish up the main game. The bulky art content can then be distributed with the game (remember, for large/console titles, the time from wrap to the game hitting your disc drive can be anywhere between 3 weeks and 3 months, sometimes more it all depends on the publishers plans for that period) so that the programmers can finish it up and release the code as DLC, giving gamers additional content that would otherwise have been lost, helping to preserve or prolong jobs, and saving consumers the headache of a lengthy download all at the same time. This too has it's problems, people see a 500kb download and unaware that it could be 1000+ programming man-hours worth of work they scream "DLC ON DISC!!! UNLOCK CODE!!!"

Unfortunately, consumers don't (and can't, why should they?) see this side of things. All they see is day 1, the game and a bunch of DLC. They have no idea that the disc has been on a boat for 3 weeks, in a warehouse for another, and then spent 3 days in the mail on the way to their house, during which time the developer is working hard finishing the DLC which by that point is an entirely separate product.

Large companies also employ heavy handed planning schedules, and do indeed plan for DLC up front, but more often than not that content, again, is approved and funded separately. It's a completely separate product that you would not have seen without the ability to distribute it as DLC.

There are a small number of companies giving the rest a bad rap, combined with the general level of consumer education about how games are made, combined these two things create an incredibly sour perception of DLC.

From where I am sitting however, DLC is totally fine by me. I will judge the game itself based on what I paid for it, and then the DLC in the same manner. If I felt the DLC was cut from the main game, or that the main game felt short or crappy then I'll complain about them accordingly. But no matter how often people bitch about DLC you have to remember that a lot of this stuff simply wouldn't exist. It's all well and good saying "the game isn't complete" or "they sold me 90% of a game and made me pay for the rest! outrageous!" but if you just ignore the DLC, and judge the game for what it was on it's own what are you left with? Because that's usually what you'd be left with before DLC whether you want to admit it or not.

I mean just look back to expansion packs, how many of those were born of incomplete features in the original game? How many of them revisited incomplete quests? Etc, the only difference is that now they can deliver that stuff to you faster with proper planning.

Where I feel DLC does fall down however, is the 'bite sized chunks' method of distribution, and the pricing structure some companies employ. There's also a lot of other stuff that makes me rage about DLC and how larger publishers employ it as part of their strategy, things like access codes, delayed DLC for the sake of 'maintaining interest' over X many months, things like this. Expansion packs also have the advantage, especially for this kind of game, in providing a large amount of content. I do not feel small packets of content work at all for RPG style games.

DLC itself though, honestly, I think people are far far too cynical. And that's coming from someone who has lost friends for being too cynical.

I don't think it's really a concern here though tbh, but I also can't help but feel a bit dismayed whenever someone used the phrase "don't sell me an unfinished game". All games are unfinished, you would struggle to find a single game in history where the developer wouldn't tell you about something they wanted but were unable to finish in time or on budget. Except maybe the gameboy version of Tetris.

[Nex]

Way I see it is they cut out stuff from the game and then sell it as DLC. No DLC for me thanks. If it is a full blown expansion then wonderful, otherwise no. I doubt Fargo would even consider doing DLC like they do these days.

[i_ramiz]

Isn't the unique skills mentioned on Kickstarter page is the some kind of DLC? Well, I prefer, for some variety from most of current triple-A and many others games with DLCs including Day-0/1 and Preorder bonus DLCs, to have W2 being full equal game for everyone. I mean, FO1 and FO2 does not have expansion packs of any kind, and this is great. No one can say he/she feel cheated by developers.
So yes. No DLCs (make these skills are for everyone), and try, for a difference , to make the full complete Game without any need to add content. Make a sequel on same engine like FO2 (or Thief 2) or little stand-alone story (well, I guess Deus Ex HR's Missing link is kinda good example) if you want.

[Jipez]

When did we start accepting this 10€ = 20 minutes DLC crap. I'm totally fine with real expansion packs like Shivering Isles for Oblivion or Night of the Raven for Gothic 2 and I hope that Wasteland 2 will get something like that.

So... No to EA style DLC and YES to real expansion packs!

[Hyaon]

DLC no, unless..it is properly priced. For example, I spent £40 or so on Guildwars:Nightfall. It was a stand alone addon as well, full of new areas/campaign/armours/weapons. A few months after that, they started selling costumes [basically an armourset] for £9.99 each. If you tried to find out how much the one armourset in Nightfall was sold for, compared to the one sold as a costume I'm willing to bet it cost pennies. That seems more fair to me, as afterall you are selling the whole package to the customers..when you start selling off tiny pieces for extortionate prices, thats when you lose me.

Personally I want to see a return to massive, brilliant add-ons, one or two. Then perhaps move onto Wasteland 3 [as new technology/ideas may have popped up during that time]

[abe]

Day 1 DLC =/= DLC aka addons.

[TheEmissary]

I have no problem with them adding a expansion that is pretty substantial that is almost a half or third of the core game. Expansions in the past were certainly worth the $10-$30 you used to spend for them considering they were almost new games. DLC on the other hand isn't really worth paying for because of how little the amount of content you ultimately get and the premium you end up paying.

I don't think anyone should really be opposed to them adding to a completed core game to keep the game alive. If the extra content adds value to the game I would have no problem paying for it.

[Dionysus]

No day-1 DLC, no silly useless DLCs, no DLCs with content that should be in the main-release ... in short: no bad DLC.

But I would love DLC, if done right.
Fallout is pretty much the prime example on how to make it right in my opinion. They put a lot of effort into creating interesting new content to expand the game. And I would love to support Wasteland 2 by buying additional DLC ... if it's worth my money of course.

[hubologynow]

Personally, I'd appreciate it if Mr. Fargo addressed this early on, before pledged funds are locked in.

In my mind, concurrent DLC development alongside the core product isn't even a discussion; it's simply not up for consideration at all until after they've delivered the final game. I have a feeling Mr. Fargo's thoughts are the same, but admittedly, I haven't achieved the AHS rank required to perfect mind-reading quite yet. Soon, though.

[Sub-Human]

Thanks, but no. What's the point of adding content later on when you've already got time? I'll be honest, I'd rather have InXile start working on a new title (Bard's Tale 3? Wasteland 3?) than additional content. This content could be supported by mods, rather than the devteam.

Besides, most DLC end up in a completely different area, with a different backstory etc. I don't really like that as it (sort of) breaks up my idea of roleplaying and the feeling of complete immersion. But if it ends up in the same area, people will be complaining. So, once again, thanks no.

[Celtic927]

DLC can be handled Well, but don't make people pay for the end of the narrative alla Alan Wake or come up with crappy half assed quests that make the game something its not. Operation Anchorage: I'm looking at you on this one. Although, DLC like POINT LOOK OUT was excellent. It can be done well, but I'd rather see a full game at release don't take advantage of fans

[Vryheid]

DLC can be a great treat to fans looking for more to do with their characters after the main storyline has ended. Obviously developers should avoid shenanigans like day-1 DLC and locked content which is already on the disk, but I feel like most of that happens when the devs are pressured by greedy publishers (think EA). I know a lot of games like Arcanum and Fallout 2 really deserved a proper expansion, and if it means investing some time after the release of the game to make some extra content, then by all means the devs should do so.

[Rhyzard]

I'm against DLC, but would not mind a full-blown expansion. DLC nowadays seem to be geared towards making extra money. It's because of DLC that I now wait for the inevitable 'Game of the Year Edition' / 'Ultimate Edition' releases before buying a game. I played the fool by getting the Fallout 3 Collector's Edition, when I could have just waited for the GotY edition. Never again...

[Drool]

I'd rather have InXile start working on a new title (Bard's Tale 3? Wasteland 3?)

Bard's Tale 3: Thief of Fate was released in 1988.

Personally, I'm finding this thread really amusing, especially the semantic hoops people are jumping through. Expansion pack yes, DLC no? Well... if that "expansion pack" is distributed digitally, then it's a DLC. You know... DownLoadable Content?

Also, it's not like you're forced to buy it...

[Roger Wilco]

DLC, as it is known today, has no place in Wasteland 2. No paying for extra weapons, extra costumes, or a couple extra trinkets.

A later expansion, like Ultima 7 did with the Forge of Virtue, I would be fine with and is perhaps a good use of extra funding beyond the 1.5 mil mark.

1 million - Creates Wasteland 2 for PC
1.5 - After PC release, port to Mac/Linux/maybe iOS
1.8/2mil - After Mac release create an expansion of good size.

I would be ok with the above scenario, though by that time hopefully creating Wasteland 3 will simply be the more logical choice.

[Signal]

I have no problem with them adding a expansion that is pretty substantial that is almost a half or third of the core game. Expansions in the past were certainly worth the $10-$30 you used to spend for them considering they were almost new games. DLC on the other hand isn't really worth paying for because of how little the amount of content you ultimately get and the premium you end up paying.

I don't think anyone should really be opposed to them adding to a completed core game to keep the game alive. If the extra content adds value to the game I would have no problem paying for it.

This.

[Ausir]

A big expansion would be great. No small DLC please, though.